a9cx34udP4ZZ0

joined 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Just because you are too stupid to see other ways to handle a literal child does not make it okay to hit said child.

While I shouldn't feed the trolls, I'll respond.

I do see other ways to handle children, I literally stated that, but you skipped that part because apparently you're too lazy or too stupid to read an entire post and retain all the information contained within it. Which tracks the rest of your message. Now before you're blinded by rage: it's pretty obvious you aren't a parent. it's pretty obvious your exposure to kids is extremely limited. Your "countless studies" apparently amounted to: 0? Because you're refuting an ACTUAL study with a post on lemmy that doesn't include a SINGLE citation.

I'm not surprised you didn't read the article, because you appear to be one of those fools that has the entire world solved, if only more people would listen to you. And it's shocking they don't, you've got such a persuasive means of communication.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Some kids absolutely need to be spanked. I was one of them - timeouts did nothing. Taking things away did nothing. Getting the threat of being spanked? Definitely stopped me in my tracks. Actually getting spanked? That's the last time I was going to try whatever stunt caused it.

My kids don't need to be spanked and never have been, other methods have always worked to curb bad behavior. Anyone saying "spanking is never acceptable" has apparently never had a shithead boy who is unphased by other forms of punishment.

For adults wondering if it's OK to spank: if you're spanking your kid out of anger or it's the first thing you turn to, you're doing something very wrong. It should be the big red button of last resort.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"If I can't get universal healthcare, I'll vote for the end of all social services and democracy as we know it. That'll show em!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That's because Facebook is selling your data and access to advertise to you. The better AI gets across the board, the more money they make. AI isn't the product, you are.

OpenAI makes money off selling AI to others. AI is the product, not you.

The fact facebook release more code, in this instance, isn't a good thing. It's a reminder how fucked we all are because they make so much off our personal data they can afford to give away literally BILLIONS of dollars in IP.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

That would be more believable if he hadn't made enough money to retire 1,000 times over now. $500m? I think most people can't grasp how much money that is. Putting that money into a shitty high yield checking account would net him $21m in income a year. It is absurd how much money he has. If he wants to fuck off and do literally nothing for the rest of his life, he can still live like a god without spending a dime of what he's earned so far.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Jill Stein doesn’t know how many members of the House there are in Congress. 600?!?!

There is a 100% chance that Trump couldn't name how many members there are in the house. I'd be shocked if he could list the branches of government without help.

note I'm not saying that's acceptable. But if that's your test for "is this a serious candidate" I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

I'm a republican, I was the throat goat until Ronnie made an honest(ish?) woman out of me. Now I assume all other women are ho's and make all my life decisions based on this false assumption.

See: welfare mother who keeps having kids to get rich??? or something?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (20 children)

"Why would I vote for a primary party candidate who supports ranked choice voting when I can just throw my vote away on a third-party candidate that will never be elected? I've got principles!"

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My .02? There's a large swath of "conservative" women who like the idea of going to church, being a stay-at-home mom, and having a husband that goes to work every day and provides for them. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that life.

But what they found out is the guys espousing that lifestyle actually want to treat their wife as property. There was a solid 30 years of momentum building around "maybe I don't want to have a two-income household, maybe I just want to be a mom". Unfortunately, while the women were thinking "we're partners in this household, I take care of the meals and the kids, you take care of making money" - the dudes were thinking "I own you, you do what I want, I do what I want, if you talk back, I'll put you in your place".

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things

They straight up asked him the question, and he refused to answer it. So, she didn't tell a "half truth" - he literally refused to say he would veto a national ban when directly given the opportunity to do so.

As for project 2025, it's his playbook. Whether or not he will specifically call it that, doesn't change the fact it's how he wants to dismantle the federal government.

view more: next ›